Outsource Your Marketing: Jared Pomranky / Net Profit Marketing Edition (Updated)

Detroit lawyer DD should not be representing criminal defendants.

DD left this comment on this post:

Screen Shot 2012 11 21 at 8 11 17 PM

“I agree with these guest posts you really don’t get anything expect for me content you don’t agree with or matches up with your site.”

One of a criminal-defense lawyer’s core competencies is the ability to string together a series of letters into what we in the business call “words,” and then to string those words together into “sentences” with what is known as “meaning.” (It is helpful also to be able to string those sentences together into paragraphs, but that’s the advanced course.)

Writing a meaningful sentence is a matter of a) having an idea; and b) converting that idea to written words in a way that the reader gets a close approximation of the idea. Converting ideas to written words is much the same as translating them to spoken words, except it’s easier because the writer has more opportunities than the speaker to edit.

You can see why getting ideas and converting them to words might be important to professionals whose job is advocating for clients’ freedom. If the criminal-defense lawyer has no idea, she’s a gelatinous cube. If she has an idea but can’t translate it to words, she might as well have no idea. In the criminal courthouse, pantomime alone seldom carries the day.

“[Y]ou really don’t get anything expect for me content you don’t agree with of matches up with your site”? Other than “except” for “expect,” which could be mere dyslexia, and excusable, I don’t know where to begin translating this.

Most of us start converting ideas to words at about age one, and practice every day from then on. There are lots of lawyers who don’t write well, but anyone who can’t form an intelligible sentence has no business representing human beings whose freedom is on the line.

So, judging from his comment, DD should find other work.

DD probably paid someone to leave that comment for him under his name; he’s still responsible for it. And the lack of judgment he has displayed by allowing someone to post unintelligible comment spam under his name renders him equally unfit to have human beings’ freedom in his hands.

(How’s the outsourcing working out for you, David? I’ll offer you The Popehat Deal: apologize for the comment spam and provide emails or other documentation identifying the marketeer he hired who produced the comment spam and proving their responsibility for this, and I’ll change your name in this post. “Because lawyers who hire bad marketeers have bad judgment, but bad marketeers are vermin, and ought to be stomped.”)

[Update: DD took advantage of The Popehat Deal. He apologized, and forwarded me this email from Jared Pomranky at Net Profit Marketing, who was handling his marketing at the time:

From: Jared Pomranky <jared@netprofitmarketing.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: link
To: DD

Hi DD,

It was in November of 2012 so it very well could have been us. The sentence doesn’t seem inline with our work, however, as we don’t outsource our work to other countries and we don’t support comment spam. Any marketers that work for me are native English speakers in the U.S. and if they are going to comment on any blogs, they’re instructed to read the blog and add to the conversation. That clearly didn’t happen here and it’s going to be addressed. I can kind of see where they were going with the comment but it looks like it was rushed and not reviewed before posting.

The comment was never approved so it didn’t get posted. The only thing that is posted is the blog post and there’s not much we can do about that besides having other pages rank higher than that page for your name. I did several searches and couldn’t find that page within the first 3 pages.

I think the blog post was a little over the top but if you’re going to take him up on the Popehat Deal of throwing the marketer under the bus, you can probably just forward him this email. I stand by our work and will own up to our mistakes.

Jared Pomranky
Net Profit Marketing
(313) 799-2218
Internet Marketing for Your Bottom Line

For a guy who “stands up to his work and will own up to his mistakes,” Pomranky is a weaselly bullshitter.

Either you do spam comments or you don’t—and commenting on blogs to market lawyers, which he admits, is spamming comments.

Either the comment was posted at his behest or it wasn’t—”it very well could have been” is not owning up.

And when DD’s (very common) name was in this post it popped up on the first page of a search for “[DD] lawyer,” and in the fifth position of a search for “[DD] Detroit lawyer”—typical searches that a potential client would conduct. So when Pomranky writes, “I did several searches and couldn’t find that page within the first 3 pages,” he’s either lying or doesn’t know enough about his business to conduct the sort of search that matters to a lawyer marketing himself online.

Beware. Be very ware.]

TSA: All That is Wrong With America

Curtis Robert Burns, also known as “Blogger Bob,” the Tokyo Rose of the TSA, responded publicly—and petulantly—to Amy Alkon’s post questioning TSA thugs concealing their identities from the traveling public (which I wrote about here and Greenfield riffed on here).

As usual, TSA’s response to criticism is that they did everything “by the book.” What Burns and his fellow authoritarians are unable to comprehend is that this is not a defense of the conduct, but an indictment of the book. 

Alkon and Greenfield have both replied to Burns’s response.

Some might be concerned about TSA’s flack’s reaction to criticism, but in my view it’s encouraging to see TSA (in a post vetted by Public Affairs) going on tilt.

And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.

-Nicholas Klein

(Because Mr. Burns so often crows about TSA marijuana seizures, it’s a shame that the web-published investigation of his marijuana-smoking past has disappeared into the fog. How did he accomplish that?)

In comments on Burns’s post, anonymous people, purportedly TSA employees, shared their views. A few samples (errors as in originals):

Ms. Alkon,
You may not realize it but we are in fact looking for one or more terrorists. If you happen to know that they all decided to stay home today…then by all means please continue disrupting our checkpoint. If you have no idea who they are or what thier plans are for today , then please stop making thier possible plans that much easier by causing disruptions and distractions which may keep us from saving people’s lives today. You are not boarding your own aircraft, you are sharing it with hundreds of others and I am sure the hundreds of others want our attention focused where it belongs, not on you. – Name withheld because Ms. Alkon doesn’t undestand how to be respectful. 

Trope 1: “We are saving people’s lives. You’re aiding terrorists. So shut up.”

First, if the premise—”we are saving people’s lives”—were true, the conclusion—”so be a good little citizen, lie back, and enjoy it”—would not follow. Saving people’s lives does not justify mistreating them. There has to be some sort of cost-benefit analysis. This country was founded on that cost-benefit analysis: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The founders so strongly believed that freedom was worth great danger that they signed the suicide pact of the Declaration of Independence: And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

Second, even if the majority of passengers disagreed with Alkon and me, even if disruptions and distractions might keep TSA “from saving people’s lives today” (I reject that premise, but even if), that’s not a good reason for Alkon not to engage in civil disobedience. The mob is seldom right—in this case the mob is both wrong and arithmetically challenged—and Alkon is entitled to take every lawful measure, including civil disobedience, to bring about change.

If something is worth saying, it’s worth signing your name to. There are few exceptions to this rule, and none of them apply to government employees defending their employer. Alkon’s opinion counts; if her critics would come out from the shadows, their opinions might count too. They would not, if they’re based on the Popular Math that has us shoveling money at TSA, count for much, but they might count for something.

(Incidentally, why are we paying to provide anonymous TSA employees a forum to defend their agency?)

Third, TSA isn’t saving lives. It’s killing us—more than a hundred of us so far, and that’s nothing compared to the toll that could be inflicted if bad guys started attacking security lines—soft targets created by TSA.

Finally, I’m sure Alkon does “undestand how to be respectful,” but the respect of the public is not something TSA or its employees are entitled to demand, and it is not something TSA or its employees have earned. “Respectful” is seldom an appropriate attitude when dealing with evil. 

So if you knew a known terrorist was flying the same day you are, would you expect TSA to allow the terrorist to be secure in his/her papers, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?.

This is the problem with travelers’ like yourself; consumed with your rights, you do not see the bigger picture. You do not know if a terrorist or someone who wants to disrupt our transportation systems’ is flying the same day you are. By the way, if you pay attention to the signs posted before you enter a screening checkpoint, they state you will undergo screening before you enter it. When you enter the checkpoint, you are consenting to undergo screening. So if you do not want to be screened, do not enter the checkpoint.

If you feel so violated then don’t fly, take a train…oh by the way, security checks passengers’ on trains too so you might feel violated there also. Maybe you should complain to the private screening departments that check you on cruise ships, trains, entering federal buildings, entering court houses, shopping malls, sports games, I guess they all refer to Mein Kampf and Mao’s Little Red Book too correct? 

Trope 2: “You’re protecting bad people.” 

Yes. That’s the point of the Fourth Amendment: because we don’t trust the government to know who is bad and who isn’t, we give bad people a little privacy to preserve our own privacy. In fact, it’s arguably the entire point of America: we are willing to accept that bad people will have the same freedom as us, and that sometimes they will use that freedom to do bad things to us. There is no “bigger picture.”

Alkon is “consumed with her rights” because those rights are what make America America. Take away those rights, and America is no longer.

Trope 3: “If you don’t want to be screened, don’t fly.”

That’s not a choice the American people should have to make. See “by the book,” above.

The security at federal buildings is actually an argument against TSA. Federal buildings and courthouses take security precautions that are much less onerous—show ID, have your bag and laptop x-rayed, and pass through the magnetometer—than TSA’s scope-or-grope. 

You people do realize that screeners wear a nameplate with their last name, right? In what scenario would you need their full name? The badge people are talking about being backwards is the airport ID. This does have the screener’s full name on it but why would u need it???  

Trope 4: “Trust us.”

In what scenario would they need my full name? I’m clearly not going to hijack or down an airplane. I’m just a guy minding my own business. I’ll give you my last name, and you let me on the plane, okay? No? Why? Because they don’t know me, and don’t have any reason to trust me any more than anyone else.

The People have no reason to trust TSA employees, and we have no reason to trust TSA’s “by the book” discipline of its own employees. When we have been wronged, we should know who has wronged us. We should be able to tell the police who has assaulted our children. We should be able to do background checks to find out what sort of misfits are pawing our belongings. We should be able to tell the world.

I recognize that this won’t be a popular view in the TSA breakroom: you are doing everything you can to avoid accountability. Accountability is no fun. You wouldn’t have taken this stupid job if you knew that Alkon might be publishing your name.

Precisely.

Finally:

I would love to see all of you with such contempt for the TSA put on a plane with someone who announced the intention of blowing it up (not real but you wouldn’t know that).

I bet after you all peed your pants,and said your prayers, you would all have a better appreciation of the TSA 

This argument doesn’t make any sense: our reaction to someone announcing his intention to blow up our plane would (and should) be the same with or without TSA. Nobody is going to say to the purported bomber, “I know that you don’t have a bomb because you went through the TSA line.” I’m not going to feel any differently about that announcement after passing through TSA’s security theatre than I would have in 1987. The best that can be said for TSA is that it wasn’t responsible for 9/11. 

It may be that the commenter is just preaching to his little choir—people who already believe that TSA doesn’t suck, and don’t see the tautology.

But, since comments on the TSA Blog are moderated, I suspect that this nonsense resulted from an edit of a “I would love to see all of you with such contempt for the TSA put on a plane with someone who had the intention of blowing it up” comment.

“After you all peed your pants and said your prayers” is the anonymous commenter’s projection. He thinks that’s how people respond to the threat of death, because that’s how he would respond. But not everyone has his unclear conscience. Many of us are at peace with the world and our place in it. I hope that someday, after he has left TSA and found honest work, the commenter will find that sort of peace as well.

Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Esquire by Matthew Buchanan.